Trump’s War of Choice

For Donald Trump, the Iran nuclear deal was always an impediment to regime change, rather than a boon to nuclear disarmament. But by scrapping the agreement and reinstating sanctions, Trump risks leaving the Middle East even worse off than George W. Bush's presidency did.

TEL AVIV – President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran was not his first departure from a key international agreement. From the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the Paris climate accord, tearing up multilateral frameworks has become a Trump specialty.

But even by Trump’s standards, exiting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as the Iran deal is formally known, is a bridge too far. The move is already being compared to President George W. Bush’s ill-fated attempt to reshape the Middle East through wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like Bush’s military misadventures, Trump’s approach to the region carries enormous risks, not least because it has buried whatever was left of the transatlantic alliance in the chasm separating America’s power politics and Europe’s emphasis on diplomacy.

Trump’s move is not just about curbing Iran’s weapons of mass destruction. Rather, his objective is regime change, something he apparently hopes to achieve by draining the Islamic Republic’s economic and strategic resources. By reinstating sanctions, Trump is all but begging the Iranian people – who will bear the brunt of the sanctions’ pain – to rise up against their government.

But Trump alone is not the cause of valid doubts about US trustworthiness. As far as I can see US has unilaterally broken every treaty it has ever made, starting with the 14 or so with the native American Indians. This follows from its doctrine of 'exceptionalism' that it is not bound by international law or convention, but can strike at will, due to its righteousness. Hence, among much else, Obama's weaponising of drones and casual slaughter of suspects, and the continued overthrow and destruction of governments on the false premiss that US clients will provide 'better' rule - e.g. in Guatamala and so on. The US influence is not beneficial except for US monopoly businesses and their allies. US has not won even one of its many wars post-1945, and was only on the winnig side back then because of Russia's 'patriotic war' efforts that bore the brunt of an horrific invasion; and since it laid Europe waste US has occupied Europe for 70+ years, destroying trade and independence through client politicians there . Long overdue resistance to our blundering US 'ally' is emerging : support for Iran - which has a legitimate and long-standing presence in the M. East unlike USA - is only part of what is to be done to resume prosperity and independence, free trade, and unsanctioned global contact by UK and Europe with the world at large. With luck we will get a non-US agreement with Iran, a non-dollar price for oil, and press press for repayment of external dollar holding s and a return of US-banked gold - which America has it seems lent and relent to sustain its position and so can no longer repay, as Germany found out when it asked for its gold back (not to mention Libya). The struggle will be long and hard, and will have to be fought by nations internally against their 'liberal' elites, as Venezuela is showing, if power and prosperity are to be regained by the various nations and their peoples, and will often come at great cost.

Shlomo Ben-Ami’s problem is too many conjectures when guessing about terrorist Iran’s behavior in the unpredictable world of international politics. He talks of moderate Iranian leaders as if moderation in Iran is moderation in a Western sense. He mocks Trump and Netanyahu, unbelieving that they mean what they say—that Iran will not field a nuclear weapon. America and Israel—and the world—need more than “curbing” WMDs. Of course Trump and Netanyahu wish for a different Iranian regime, a regime whose interest is of the Iranian people rather than of conquering and destroying other peoples. Shlomo Ben-Ami must believe the unbelievable, that Iran’s leadership is trustworthy, that Iran’s regional aggressiveness is innocuous, and that the hanging-on signatories place world peace first and economics second.

Shlomo Ben-Ami says Trump is conducting a “war of choice” against Iran, which can lead to a full-blown conflagration in the region. Trump’s rationale behind his withdrawal from the nuclear deal (JCPOA) is seen by many as an effort to topple the leadership in Tehran. The plan may have been months in the making. He ridded himself of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser HR McMaster, both supported the JCPOA and called for restraint. Trump quickly appointed John Bolton and Mike Pompeo as his new advisers, who have long advocated regime change in Tehran. They propose a combination of sanctions, support for opposition groups and military intervention and hope that the theocratic leadership would not be around to celebrate Iran’s 40th anniversary of the 1979 Revolution. They criticised Obama for negotiating with Tehran and support the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), an exiled opposition group with a controversial past and little support within Iran. Trump’s closest advisers have views on Iran that are so hostile that only Saudi Arabia and Israel share them. Their plot is to drain “Iran’s economic and strategic resources.” With the re-imposition of sanctions, “Trump is all but begging the Iranian people – who will bear the brunt of the sanctions’ pain – to rise up against their government.” During protests over economic hardship and alleged corruption last December, the Revolutionary Guards’ deputy security chief warned that protesters would face “the nation’s iron fist” if unrest persisted. Such circumstance would trigger a US intervention in the name of “Responsibility To Protect.” The author says Trump’s “abrogation of the JCPOA has left Iran with two options, neither of them good.” The first is to renegotiate the deal with Britain France Germany, China and Russia. But should sanctions be reimposed by the US, Europeans might get cold feet and refrain from engaging with Iran. The second is to surrender to the hardliners and scrap the deal altogether. A resumption of nuclear activities would only invite military action from Israel – which has the best military in the region – with Trump’s approval. An all-out war of sectarian nature would involve Iran’s proxies – the Hezbollah – and the Sunni regional powers. It is just a matter of time that the US realises that “only robust international diplomacy can halt the Middle East’s slide toward nuclear proliferation.” The author urges the remaining signatories to “salvage the agreement’s central tenets by supporting Iran’s moderate leaders in mitigating the effects of new sanctions. The deal’s remaining supporters can also help defuse the crisis on Israel’s northern border, where Israeli and Iranian forces are already engaging each other directly.” Trump refuses to realise that the world has paid a high price for his impulsive and short-sighted foreign policies. He has no regard for America’s future and wellbeing neither, because he puts his personal interests ahead of the country’s. Squandering its goodwill and credibility will drive European powers into the arms of China and Russia, which are hell-bent on defying America’s global dominance, leaving the US weak and isolated. Trump should learn from history that regime change – more often than not – was followed by greater uncertainty and instability. Unfortunately under him, the US will in its reckless foreign policy afflict more and more pain on others.

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

PS OnPoint

The Mueller report in America, along with reports of interference in this week’s European Parliament election, has laid bare the lengths to which Russia will go to undermine Western democracies. But whether Westerners have fully awoken to the threat is an open question.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.